Critical elections are rare turning points when normal voting patterns shift. Understanding how and why these elections reshape party coalitions helps explain long-term changes in American party competition and governing priorities.

Core idea: critical elections and realignment

Key terms

Critical elections matter because they can reorganize who supports each party, what each party stands for, and which party is positioned to win repeatedly for a time.

What makes an election “critical”?

Signals AP Gov students should look for

A critical election is not just “close” or “dramatic.” It is “critical” when the outcome reflects a deeper, lasting restructuring of political support.

Common indicators include:

This county-level map of the 1932 presidential election visualizes how overwhelmingly Franklin D. Roosevelt carried much of the country compared with Herbert Hoover. Because it is shaded by vote share, it helps you see where support was deep (not just where a candidate barely won), which is exactly what you look for when arguing an election reflects a durable coalition shift rather than a temporary swing. Source

• Durability: the new voting pattern persists across multiple subsequent elections.

• Coalition change: major demographic, regional, religious, class, or ideological groups switch their typical party support.

• Issue change: a new set of salient issues (or a redefinition of old issues) becomes central to party conflict.

• High participation or intensity: unusually strong engagement can accompany the shift, though high turnout alone is not proof.

• New governing agenda: the winning party gains the capacity to pass major policy changes because its coalition holds together.

This state-level electoral vote map for 1932 highlights the decisive Electoral College outcome that accompanied Roosevelt’s victory. In realignment terms, it’s a fast way to show how a coalition shift can translate into governing capacity—large, repeated wins make it easier for the winning party to pursue a sustained policy agenda. Source

What it reshapes inside parties

Realignment is not only about voters; it can change party organization and strategy:

• Party structure: which factions dominate, which messages are emphasised, and how candidates position themselves.

• Coalition management: the party must balance new supporters with existing groups to avoid internal fractures.

• Geographic strategy: changes in regional strength affect resource allocation, candidate recruitment, and governing incentives.

Why realignments happen

Conditions that can produce a durable shift

Critical elections tend to emerge from multiple reinforcing forces rather than a single event:

• Major social and economic change: industrialization, urbanization, migration, or economic crisis can reorder interests.

• New or reframed issues: parties may polarize around an issue that cuts across older loyalties, encouraging voters to “sort” into a party that better matches their values.

• Performance and legitimacy shocks: wars, scandals, or perceived governmental failure can weaken an existing majority coalition and open space for a new one.

• Generational replacement: younger voters form partisan identities under different conditions, gradually changing the electorate’s baseline.

Realignment is contested: limits and complications

How to avoid over-claiming “realignment”

Not every election that produces a new president or congressional majority is a realignment. Analysts look for sustained coalition change rather than a temporary swing.

Complicating factors include:

Gallup’s trend graphic(s) on this page summarize long-run changes in Americans’ partisan self-identification, emphasizing the growth of independents relative to Democrats and Republicans. This is a useful visual for the concept of dealignment: when party attachments weaken, election-to-election shifts can look dramatic without producing a durable, party-centered realignment. Source

• Dealignment: weakening party attachments can increase independents and split-ticket behavior, making shifts look less stable.

• Polarization without realignment: parties can become more ideologically distinct while coalitions remain relatively consistent.

• Asymmetric change: one party may transform more than the other, or change may be concentrated in specific regions.

What students should be able to do with the syllabus claim

To apply the syllabus focus, connect the election to the mechanism:

• Identify which voter groups moved and which issues motivated the move.

• Explain how that movement reshaped party coalitions.

• Describe how coalition change altered party structure (leadership, factions, priorities, and the party’s governing agenda).